Dimitrijevich and Commissioner for Fair Trading (SA)

This matter concerned an application by Dimitrijevich against the Commissioner for Fair Trading (SA) before K Millar M. The dispute arose from the Commissioner's decision to impose conditions on a licence granted to Dimitrijevich, which the applicant contended was inconsistent with a Ministerial declaration made under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether, in the presence of a Ministerial declaration specifying the equivalence of occupations, the Commissioner had the power to impose additional conditions on a licence that were not stipulated in that declaration. Specifically, the court had to interpret clauses within the declaration concerning the equivalence of occupations and the conditions, limitations, or restrictions applicable to them.

The court reasoned that the object of the Mutual Recognition Act is to promote the freedom of movement of service providers within a national market, which is facilitated by clear Ministerial declarations of occupational equivalence. A plain reading of the relevant clauses indicated that any conditions, limitations, or restrictions applicable to an occupation were to be specified within the declaration itself. While clause 7 of the declaration allowed for the imposition of conditions that mirrored those already in effect in the applicant's original jurisdiction, it did not permit a local registration authority to conduct a new assessment and impose entirely new conditions. The court found that the Commissioner's interpretation would allow a local authority to effectively override a Ministerial declaration, which was inconsistent with the statutory requirement to give effect to such declarations.

Consequently, the decision under review was set aside and remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration, with a direction to give effect to the Mutual Recognition (Equivalence of Gaming and Other Occupations) Declaration 2009. The application for costs was declined.